1
1
0
What are your thoughts on this article? I think that it makes a valid point. "The military doesn't just write someone off because we don't like them."
I have my opinions about Bergdahl, but I believe that everyone deserves to be brought home. Even if it's brought home to be brought to justice.
http://www.businessinsider.com/never-leave-behind-bowe-bergdahl-2014-6
I have my opinions about Bergdahl, but I believe that everyone deserves to be brought home. Even if it's brought home to be brought to justice.
http://www.businessinsider.com/never-leave-behind-bowe-bergdahl-2014-6
Posted in these groups: 
POW/MIA
POW/MIA
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
8
8
0
When one makes a decision they must also look at the consequences that could result from it.
Releasing 5 Taliban leaders from Gitmo gave the Taliban a huge victory. For one, it changed the course of our foreign policy that we would not negotiate with terrorists. Second, these 5 Taliban leaders will be back in the fight. News reports are already confirming they plan to rejoin the fight against Americans as soon as possible. As they are free to travel anywhere they want to while in exile in Qatar for a year, they will be smuggled out within a few months and returned to Afghanistan.
This trade opened Pandora's box so to speak. We have other Taliban leaders at Gitmo. This trade has motivated the desire of the Taliban and other Islamic terrorist groups to kidnap more Americans military or civilian anywhere in the world to be held hostage for the release of more detained prisoners.
If anyone believes once we have completely withdrawn from Afghanistan the US will no fear of them, they are foolish. Illegal immigration in this country has proven our borders are defenseless and anyone with a real desire to cross them can, to include members of the Taliban or any other Islamic extremists.
I don't care if Bergdahl was one of the greatest Soldiers to wear the uniform, this trade has wrong because of the consequences that can result from it. Polls show the majority of Americans feel this trade was a mistake.
We do everything we can to not leave anyone behind, but the reality is that is sometimes impossible to do.
Releasing 5 Taliban leaders from Gitmo gave the Taliban a huge victory. For one, it changed the course of our foreign policy that we would not negotiate with terrorists. Second, these 5 Taliban leaders will be back in the fight. News reports are already confirming they plan to rejoin the fight against Americans as soon as possible. As they are free to travel anywhere they want to while in exile in Qatar for a year, they will be smuggled out within a few months and returned to Afghanistan.
This trade opened Pandora's box so to speak. We have other Taliban leaders at Gitmo. This trade has motivated the desire of the Taliban and other Islamic terrorist groups to kidnap more Americans military or civilian anywhere in the world to be held hostage for the release of more detained prisoners.
If anyone believes once we have completely withdrawn from Afghanistan the US will no fear of them, they are foolish. Illegal immigration in this country has proven our borders are defenseless and anyone with a real desire to cross them can, to include members of the Taliban or any other Islamic extremists.
I don't care if Bergdahl was one of the greatest Soldiers to wear the uniform, this trade has wrong because of the consequences that can result from it. Polls show the majority of Americans feel this trade was a mistake.
We do everything we can to not leave anyone behind, but the reality is that is sometimes impossible to do.
(8)
(0)
LCpl Rick Ponton
I AGREE WITH SFC FOX AND I SAW ILEANA ROS LETHINEN A SHORT WHILE AGO SAYING THIS ON FOX NEWS
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
fox news, really? anyway... from what I was reading it was "Do the deal or we kill him." while he might be a traitor or a deserter, his fate is for us to decide, not them.
(0)
(0)
SFC Gary Fox
LCpl Lefier, I find it amazing the administration waited days well after the release the Taliban were going to kill him if the trade wasn't made. I really don't believe it because then they would have killed the only asset they had in hopes of securing a trade for the 5 Taliban leaders.
When you go out on a mission, it is the goal to leave no man behind, even if he is killed or captured on the battlefield. The reality is you have to assess what the costs would be to get the man back.
Let's say for the fact of argument your platoon is out on a mounted patrol in Afghanistan. You're moving through a mountain pass and the roadway narrows when an IED takes out the first vehicle. Four members of your team are in that vehicle. Two escape the vehicle wounded, but the other two remain inside dead. Now you're taking direct fire on your left and right. The enemy fires a couple of RPG rounds that are near misses. You are receiving intense small arms fire. You and your Platoon Leader quickly assess you are severely outmanned. You can't move forward because the dead vehicle blocks the roadway and there is no way to move around it. More RPGs are being fired at your platoon. The only chance of getting out of the kill zone is behind you. The Platoon Leader gives the command to advance to the rear. Two members of your platoon in the vehicle behind the dead one exit the vehicle and are killed while they attempt to retrieve the two dead Marines in the first vehicle. Your Platoon leader knows ordering any Marine out of their vehicle to retrieve the dead is going to result in more Marines being killed. The closest air support is 30 minutes away due to weather. To reduce his losses the Platoon Leader gives the command for the platoon to advance to the rear. The platoon makes it out of the kill zone and to a spot where they can set up a defensive perimeter while awaiting air support.
Was your Platoon Leader wrong in making the decision to leave the 4 dead Marines behind?
While all this has been going on, your RTO has been requesting air support, and has been informed the closest air support is 30 minutes away. You give the command to advance to the rear leaving behind 4 dead Marines.
When you go out on a mission, it is the goal to leave no man behind, even if he is killed or captured on the battlefield. The reality is you have to assess what the costs would be to get the man back.
Let's say for the fact of argument your platoon is out on a mounted patrol in Afghanistan. You're moving through a mountain pass and the roadway narrows when an IED takes out the first vehicle. Four members of your team are in that vehicle. Two escape the vehicle wounded, but the other two remain inside dead. Now you're taking direct fire on your left and right. The enemy fires a couple of RPG rounds that are near misses. You are receiving intense small arms fire. You and your Platoon Leader quickly assess you are severely outmanned. You can't move forward because the dead vehicle blocks the roadway and there is no way to move around it. More RPGs are being fired at your platoon. The only chance of getting out of the kill zone is behind you. The Platoon Leader gives the command to advance to the rear. Two members of your platoon in the vehicle behind the dead one exit the vehicle and are killed while they attempt to retrieve the two dead Marines in the first vehicle. Your Platoon leader knows ordering any Marine out of their vehicle to retrieve the dead is going to result in more Marines being killed. The closest air support is 30 minutes away due to weather. To reduce his losses the Platoon Leader gives the command for the platoon to advance to the rear. The platoon makes it out of the kill zone and to a spot where they can set up a defensive perimeter while awaiting air support.
Was your Platoon Leader wrong in making the decision to leave the 4 dead Marines behind?
While all this has been going on, your RTO has been requesting air support, and has been informed the closest air support is 30 minutes away. You give the command to advance to the rear leaving behind 4 dead Marines.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Sam Deel
Fast-forward to today. All predictions came TRUE. No big surprise there. Oh, but the Obamanation promised that they would all be "retired", playing golf in Qatar. Interesting enough, all of the advanced US Military weapons that the Obamanation gave to the myriad of islamic terorrist units that we were at War with (still are), in his Arab Spring Offensive in North Africa, "disappeared" thru Qatar to Western Iraq, Syria, Helmad Provice, Afghanistan and Western Pakistan. Why Obama and his drones were not tried as TRAITORS and meet a Firing Squad, is indicative of how FUBAR this Nation has become.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
By all accounts, Bergdahl was rather different, rated as a proficient soldier, did not get along well with members of his unit, studied local languages, spent a lot of time with Afghan soldiers, walked off base with three Afghan soldiers, and these four coalition soldiers were captured together. There are reports he was intoxicated when captured. We have no idea about his state of mind and/or his intentions when he walked past the wire. What we do know is that he was captured in uniform within a few hours, spirited from Afghanistan to Pakistan, moved frequently to evade rescue missions, guarded closely against escape, made two successful escapes and evaded his captors for several days, but he had no opportunity to return to any coalition military unit for the next five years from the morning of his absence until his return. He was properly classified as missing and captured. We had absolute obligation to rescue or recover his body.
Warmest Regards, Sandy
Warmest Regards, Sandy
Suspended Profile
I'm really trying not to comment further - but there are multiple sources
http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2014/06/06/bergdahl-s-previous-escape-attempts.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2014/06/06/bergdahl-s-previous-escape-attempts.html
Bergdahl's Previous Escape Attempts
While being held captive by the Taliban, Bowe Bergdahl almost escaped on his own—twice. The Daily Beast's Kim Dozier recounts those getaway attempts, and what ultimately went wrong.
3
3
0
I have to admit it's a pretty good article and makes a compelling case for bringing him back.
I do think he needed to be brought back then, as the evidence dictates, prosecuted for any misdeeds.
I do think he needed to be brought back then, as the evidence dictates, prosecuted for any misdeeds.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Just to be clear also, I heavily 110% disagree in the WAY he was brought back. It's wrong and downright criminal.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
LCpl Rick Ponton
I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE ARMY CONDUCT A FAIR VIEW OF THE FACTS THEY ANSWER TO THE PRESIDENT
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google